View Full Version : Police like this should be fired and publicly humiliated
Weapons Confiscation in Wisconsin (http://www.jpfo.org/alerts02/alert20081212b.htm)
I should probably move this thread to Trash because I know what direction it's going to take. Let's be very clear that a lot of our members, moderators and staff are LEO so do not turn this into a "us vs. them" pissing match. It won't be tolerated.
I wasn't there but I highly doubt any of those officers woke up that morning, looked in the mirror and said, "I'm going to deny someone their civil liberties today"!
This is a classic case of poor training and poor leadership. If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the City Counsel or the Chief. It's obvious their Police force needs more training.
Let's be very clear that a lot of our members, moderators and staff are LEO so do not turn this into a "us vs. them" pissing match.
I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts on the matter.
I'd appreciate hearing their thoughts on the matter.
Well it's all pretty much speculation. Having been involved in many incidents that were later reported in the media it's always remarkable to me how far off the facts can be when reported. Most people when reading this type of report will believe what they want to believe based on their individual bias.
There is one thing that concerns me about the article. And it is this;
Fortunately, Mr. Krause had taken a friends advice and he had a voice recorder with him and the entire incident was recorded and it has been transcribed.
So my question is did he have the recorder in his pocket because he had a feeling that his neighbor was going to call the police or did they simply say after he was arrested "oh no problem we'll let you grab your little recorder and record everything". Generally when I searched people they weren't allowed to retain anything nor would I allow them to go in the house and get anything.
exitinyourhead
12-12-08, 18:49
I'm not law enforcement but this sounds kinda fishy... The guy said he didn't like his neighbor wearing a gun so the cops zoom out there all hard and arrest him? He has a recorder on him to record the whole event, just in case someday he might be wrongfully arrested?
This, seems to me, is a classic only the second half of the story told. If the police came out there hot and ready to arrest him and the he was ready to be arrested, more stuff happened previously and the call was more urgent then "hey guess what I don't like this and do something about it?"
Trust me, I'm all about gun rights, but I am more about the truth from both sides.
Oh yeah, this is why I don't have neighbors.
I should probably move this thread to Trash because I know what direction it's going to take. Let's be very clear that a lot of our members, moderators and staff are LEO so do not turn this into a "us vs. them" pissing match. It won't be tolerated.
I wasn't there but I highly doubt any of those officers woke up that morning, looked in the mirror and said, "I'm going to deny someone their civil liberties today"!
This is a classic case of poor training and poor leadership. If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the City Counsel or the Chief. It's obvious their Police force needs more training.
^^^^^
This pretty much sums up my thoughts.
I personally was involved in confiscating weapons when the first busloads of Katrina victims showed up at the Houston Astrodome. Its a long story but lets just say the people that were sleeping in the dome gave their weapons up quite willingly when requested.
There is one thing that concerns me about the article. And it is this;
Fortunately, Mr. Krause had taken a friends advice and he had a voice recorder with him and the entire incident was recorded and it has been transcribed.
So my question is did he have the recorder in his pocket because he had a feeling that his neighbor was going to call the police or did they simply say after he was arrested "oh no problem we'll let you grab your little recorder and record everything". Generally when I searched people they weren't allowed to retain anything nor would I allow them to go in the house and get anything.
Not LEO, but I just read the article and this is my issue as well. Seems like there is something missing in this story since he took his "friends advice" (when?). Seems like a set up but at least something smells about this.
Fishy... not necessarily. My guess is he was doing an experiment. A friend of mine and I have considered doing our own open-carry experiment- he still wants to, I'd rather not, because I figured this is exactly what would happen.
There's nothing wrong with doing an open-carry experiment. Just because he's got a recorder, just because he EXPECTED to be arrested, does not diminish the fact that his right was horribly violated.
Don Robison
12-12-08, 19:53
I'd like to know the back story between these two neighbors as well as hear the recording of the call to the cops.
Was the call "Hey my neighbor is planting trees with a gun on his hip." or was it "My neighbor is in his front yard waiving a gun around acting crazy digging in the yard."
I would bet that there is not one cop who posts here that is going to favor ANY gun confiscation of law abiding citizens. Most of the people who post here, LEO or not are "gun people". They have an interest in and enjoy firearms for more than their job requirements. This should not turn into a us/them thing because everyone here is an "us".
With that being stated I feel like there is more to this story than we have read. Before telling you what I think was done right or wrong I require the whole story. Garbage in, garbage out. As has been pointed out already, if I make an arrest whatever is in the pockets is in my possession until I give it to the detention deputies. A recorder wouldn't bother most cops as mine is already on anyway. I don't even know if I would turn theirs off. Maybe, maybe not. If I am making an arrest and my SOP says I will record it, then I do. I don't think the arrestee has the right of his own, separate recording. It's just not an issue. I do find it odd that our citizen is out in his yard planting his trees with a digital recorder in his pocket. Everyone I know does that! I wonder what else he did to prepare this test or to make sure he got the attention of his neighbor. Or was he part of this test as well?
I should probably move this thread to Trash because I know what direction it's going to take. Let's be very clear that a lot of our members, moderators and staff are LEO so do not turn this into a "us vs. them" pissing match. It won't be tolerated.
I wasn't there but I highly doubt any of those officers woke up that morning, looked in the mirror and said, "I'm going to deny someone their civil liberties today"!
This is a classic case of poor training and poor leadership. If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the City Counsel or the Chief. It's obvious their Police force needs more training.
ehhh... I don't know about all that. I can't comment on the article directly due to it being incomplete but concerning you general comments....
"classic case of poor training and poor leadership...."
While that's true. The men who enforce the law have an absolute mandate to know the law. That goes for enforcing it with civilians AND leadership.
The gentleman in this thread that was involved in the Katrina gun confiscation. If all you did was ask and they gave it up, that's awesome. I can't believe the stuff I get, or get to do, just by asking. Also, if the dome had some sort of mandate concerning firearms, the confiscation of them at that location, even under extreme force, is more than understandable. They didn't have to show up there but if they choose to, they were going to follow the rules. I have no issue with that in the least.
Jay Cunningham
12-12-08, 21:18
The men who enforce the law have an absolute mandate to know the law.
What do you mean by this statement?
What do you mean by this statement?
I've seen personally the, "I thought because I was ordered to do X I was in the clear" or some variation of it. Meanwhile, the law was clear as day in stood in stark contrast to said orders. I blame both equally in the process. Am I alone in that?
MisterWilson
12-12-08, 21:49
What do you mean by this statement?
I would venture to say that much in the same way that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" for us, such unfamiliarity with the law shouldn't be an excuse for them.
If we have an absolute requirement to know (and follow) the law, why not them?
ETA: I don't envy police officers, always walking the fine line between a rock & a hard place. I personally would withhold making any opinions about this incident pending more information.
There's just so many ways this could have gone down...From the officers being out of line to this guy simply being a douche.
Patrick Aherne
12-12-08, 22:56
The guy IS a douche. But, it's not illegal to be a douche in the good 'ol USA. He, by carrying openly AND carrying a voice recorder, obviously knew what he was up to and wanted to cause a disturbance. He was also, probably, interested in making some kind of civil rights demonstration by his actions.
I have dealt with other folks, not around firearms issues, regarding civil rights. Most times, we can come to some agreement, even to include how many folks want to be arrested at a given demonstration.
However, he chose to up the ante and go forward without notifying the local PD he was conducting an exercise of his civil rights. This is totally allowable and understandable, given our American heritage and desire to be free from government harassment.
Unfortunately, this guy will forever be hated by the cops involved, will probably win a large civil suit, and will whine like a biatch about his arrest. He would have been more successful, and less arrested, if he had chosen the way of most civil disobediance practitioners, by calling the police, creating a contact and informing them of the law and his intended actions.
God Bless America and I hope this guy's rights are restored and the police in the area educated as to the law. However, he will still be a d!ckhead.
He would have been more successful, and less arrested, if he had chosen the way of most civil disobediance practitioners, by calling the police, creating a contact and informing them of the law and his intended actions.
He should have called the police to notify them he was going to carry on his own yard? Really? That's the road you think we (the societal "we") should go down? :confused:
He should have called the police to notify them he was going to carry on his own yard? Really? That's the road you think we (the societal "we") should go down? :confused:
That's so messed-up a reading of what Patrick said, I'm not even sure there's a way to explain how messed-up it is. My advice: try reading it again.
I assume you weren't trying to be a sarcastic ass, so I did read it again.
I'm still trying to understand how carrying in your own yard is "upping the ante" on the police. This type of activity is also not civil disobedience (if it is true that OC is legal in Wisconsin): that term implies you are publicly and intentionally breaking the law in order to challenge its validity before the court and the public at large.
That's so messed-up a reading of what Patrick said, I'm not even sure there's a way to explain how messed-up it is. My advice: try reading it again.
I read it twice, and both times it looked the same.
how is packing in your yard civil disobedience?
i disagree. indeed, we have no idea what the whole story is- but i can tell you nobody should ever call the police to let them know you're gonna be walking around your own yard with a pistol on your hip. i'd be calling the cops a couple hundred times a year.
Patrick Aherne
12-13-08, 00:03
I am NOT saying this guy was wrong in carrying in his own yard. However, knowing that Wisconsin is damn near a commie paradise, given that there is NO CCW at all, he had to know that this type of action would generate a negative PD response. Therefore, this guy knew what might, or could happen, as referenced by his strapping on the voice recorder.
He is lucky he didn't get shot. Because, after nearly 16 years of doing this work, I am sure his neighbor called in a, "Man with a GUN!" call that amped up the local constabulary, unneccesarily.
Understand, I am TOTALLY in favor of the 2nd Amendment and its free exercise, to include Alaska-style, i.e. no permit required, CCW. However, I know that common human dynamics are not negotiable: if you scare people and alarm the police you WILL get guns pointed at you and arrested. Therefore, it is better, in the long run, to take the path of education of your civil servants and establishing a dialogue beforehand to eliminate these, "Oh shit," situations.
This is common sense. I know it may not be the most tasteful of remedies for the proponents of civil rights, yet it accurately describes the nature of society and the facts of human frailty. Violate these maxims at your own risk.
Jay Cunningham
12-13-08, 00:12
This is common sense.
Yes.
There is a lunatic OC contingent here in PA, and they lack this vital quality.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-13-08, 00:28
This story with out the transcipt is like porn with out pictures.
The way this sounds, the neighbor might be in on it.
The way things go, I've wondered if it would be smart to carry an "iMIC" that continiously loop records the last 24 hours, or even a week? Heck if nothing more than trying to remember what my wife sent me to the store for.
ThirdWatcher
12-13-08, 00:30
I've made a couple observations of the years: Common sense is the least common of the senses and this country has always had a lunatic fringe. There has to be more to the story.
where is Paul Harvey when you need him !!!!!
seems strange for sure since we ALL dont know the facts ?
from my strange trying to understand humans this is a fun thread in the sense that a few of us here are LE and some are not have dif views ?
one side: he might have baited them ?
the other side: he was doing nothing ?
I would love to get my brothers thoughts being a prosecutor :) I bet he would throw a whole new angle into it
when I read this stuff I think HMMMM OK I have one side now I need the other but the voice recorder thing ????? thats very very strange for sure and makes me lean to baiting
Who knows what really happened.
Having a voice recorder on you is an unusual move, and one that only someone who is expecting some kind of confrontation would do IMO...
I am NOT saying this guy was wrong in carrying in his own yard. However, knowing that Wisconsin is damn near a commie paradise, given that there is NO CCW at all, he had to know that this type of action would generate a negative PD response. Therefore, this guy knew what might, or could happen, as referenced by his strapping on the voice recorder.
He is lucky he didn't get shot. Because, after nearly 16 years of doing this work, I am sure his neighbor called in a, "Man with a GUN!" call that amped up the local constabulary, unneccesarily.
Understand, I am TOTALLY in favor of the 2nd Amendment and its free exercise, to include Alaska-style, i.e. no permit required, CCW. However, I know that common human dynamics are not negotiable: if you scare people and alarm the police you WILL get guns pointed at you and arrested. Therefore, it is better, in the long run, to take the path of education of your civil servants and establishing a dialogue beforehand to eliminate these, "Oh shit," situations.
This is common sense. I know it may not be the most tasteful of remedies for the proponents of civil rights, yet it accurately describes the nature of society and the facts of human frailty. Violate these maxims at your own risk.
Wise words Aherne. Thanks
I will be attending this court case later in the week, I am going to hold off on further comments until I have a few more cups of coffee and am better able to process some of the statements that have been made here.
I'd like to know the back story between these two neighbors as well as hear the recording of the call to the cops.
Was the call "Hey my neighbor is planting trees with a gun on his hip." or was it "My neighbor is in his front yard waiving a gun around acting crazy digging in the yard."
Yup.
I'd like to know a lot more about the participants, including the RP, like social histories, contact and intel histories, and all the little variables that added up here that wouldn't be publicly releaseable or seen in the paper.
South East Wisconsin...especially Milwaukee County... is a Liberal Paradise, for sure. For LE officers, there is a good, recent, discussion regarding CCW and DC, which you can read for yourself if you have access to WILENET. www.wilenet.org
Look under "Perls of Wisdom," then "Dear Dave Library."
I'm not gonna post it, since it's in the restricted portion of the website, but essentially, the Wisconsin Assisstant AG is sayin' is the police can't be the victim of DC where mere open carry alone is considered to be the Disorderly Conduct. OTOH, if your neighbor, (that doesn't like you to begin with,) or the store clerk, etc....calls saying he's scared that your packin' heat, and can articulate why, blah, blah, blah,......that's a different story. Sort of like yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Common sense isn't so common anymore.
First off seems that this guy was wanting something to happen.
Second, I have noticed that numerous new co-workers (cops) don't know what their job is. It's like they believe that guns are bad and that if encountered on the street the owner is a bad person. (I blame our schools and media) They are so worried about following policy that they forget that they are sworn to the Constitution.
At least 60% of our new cops never shot a gun until the academy. Many of them leave the guns in their lockers when they leave the PD. They have no gun in their house and only shot on qualification days.
This case will be thrown out if there is not missing information.
nighthawk756
12-13-08, 12:04
I'm not law enforcement but this sounds kinda fishy... The guy said he didn't like his neighbor wearing a gun so the cops zoom out there all hard and arrest him? He has a recorder on him to record the whole event, just in case someday he might be wrongfully arrested?
This, seems to me, is a classic only the second half of the story told. If the police came out there hot and ready to arrest him and the he was ready to be arrested, more stuff happened previously and the call was more urgent then "hey guess what I don't like this and do something about it?"
Trust me, I'm all about gun rights, but I am more about the truth from both sides.
Oh yeah, this is why I don't have neighbors.
This.
There's more to this story for sure and I'd like to know it.
Second, I have noticed that numerous new co-workers (cops) don't know what their job is. It's like they believe that guns are bad and that if encountered on the street the owner is a bad person.
At least 60% of our new cops never shot a gun until the academy. Many of them leave the guns in their lockers when they leave the PD. They have no gun in their house and only shot on qualification days.
I always chuckle a little...and then take a quick moment to educate...when I hear my coppers ask: "Is that gun registered, sir?"
Ummmmm....Wisconsin doesn't have registration.........
I'm not law enforcement but this sounds kinda fishy... The guy said he didn't like his neighbor wearing a gun so the cops zoom out there all hard and arrest him? He has a recorder on him to record the whole event, just in case someday he might be wrongfully arrested?
This, seems to me, is a classic only the second half of the story told. If the police came out there hot and ready to arrest him and the he was ready to be arrested, more stuff happened previously and the call was more urgent then "hey guess what I don't like this and do something about it?"
Trust me, I'm all about gun rights, but I am more about the truth from both sides.
Oh yeah, this is why I don't have neighbors.
agreed, we're not getting the entire story. It could be that the neighbor was a jack ass and Krause was aware of that and was prepared.
I will say that if this story, as printed, is pretty much the entire truth then all you have is evidence of one group of officers of one department in one city in one state out of the entire nation that probably over reacted. But it wouldn't be indicative of every LEO every where. If this is the case then I think some counseling on the law to the officers and reparations to Krause would be in order. Not tar and feathering. But that is all guess work on my part and thats about as far as I'm willing to go based on the lack of information available.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 15:59
Deliberately pissing off my hometown department by trying to get a judgment against them doesn't seem like a smart way to advance the cause of the 2nd amendment.
So often in reports of interaction with law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding citizens with firearms things seem to get really nasty primarily because somebody was, to borrow Mr. Aherne's description, a dickhead.
Being courteous, polite, and professional with the police will rarely result in arrest or an ass-whoopin', in my experience.
I think the point here is that it appears the defendant specifically wanted to get arrested. It's not a stretch of the imagination, then, to think maybe he wanted his day in court and wanted the media attention.
If I understood Patrick's post correctly, the point was that the defendant could have achieved all of these things with much less risk to himself and the officers simply by picking up a phone.
So often in reports of interaction with law enforcement and otherwise law-abiding citizens with firearms things seem to get really nasty primarily because somebody was, to borrow Mr. Aherne's description, a dickhead.
and probably rightly so. if im doing legal things with firearms and approached by police, depending on the circumstances i'm probably going to be a dickhead.
call me 200 years old, but it seems to me that a person not committing crimes should be able to go his entire life without ever having any contact with any form of government, especially police. i realize this is entirely impossible, the way our society has evolved, but i'm stubbornly stuck to this ideal.
rightwingmaniac
12-13-08, 16:55
I should probably move this thread to Trash because I know what direction it's going to take. Let's be very clear that a lot of our members, moderators and staff are LEO so do not turn this into a "us vs. them" pissing match. It won't be tolerated.
I wasn't there but I highly doubt any of those officers woke up that morning, looked in the mirror and said, "I'm going to deny someone their civil liberties today"!
This is a classic case of poor training and poor leadership. If you want to be pissed at someone be pissed at the City Counsel or the Chief. It's obvious their Police force needs more training.
this is why leo's get a bad name. but lets not limit our 1st ammendment rights and not talk about it. every department has rambo renegades just like this department. i bet every leo here knows of someone in his department that could fit this bill. personally i like it, but it was misplaced here.save it for some real dirtbags that deserve it. you know, career criminals, gangsters and so on.
I've typed and retyped this several times and there is no easy way to put this as I'm sure I will offend someone no matter how i reply. I will attempt to be brief...
In 1998 this amendment was added to the state constitution.
"The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, #25"
Art. 1 of the Wisconsin constitution is the rights of the individual citizen, #25 was twice voted on by the citizenry in order for it to be added to the state constitution. The need arose because there were talks of regulating certain types of firearms in several city's. The support for this constitutional change were over whelming and I seem to remember they won with like 68% voting in favor of.
The law banning concealed firearms was enacted in 1872, it was a knee jerk reaction to one of our elected legislatures shooting and killing one of his fellow politicians.
To top it all off, the people of Wisconsin have tried to pass concealed carry on numerous occasions. The last time legislation was passed; it was vetoed by the governor, then was sent back for a veto override, only to fail there because one of the bills co signers changed his vote. Thank you goes to the weasel John Steinbrink, for not having the balls to go against the governor and doing what he sad he would do.
As we should all know, no laws can be enacted to violate the constitution and if they do they will be tested in court to ensure they pass constitutional muster.
So that said how does one go about carrying a firearm to protect himself, if its illegal to carry concealed then he must open carry. He has no other options, but to be arrested and plead his case in court.
The concealed carry charges that have gone in front of the state SC have all had the convictions overturned however they have all been ruled with very narrow scope and have only dealt with the particular case for example. You are with in your right to carry concealed if you are a pizza delivery driver that has been mugged before.
With no means to possibly get concealed carry to the legislature until 2011 at the earliest people are attempting to get convicted of carrying concealed with the hopes of getting to the Wisconsin SC. This is one of those attempts, his use of a recorder was preplanned and there to protect him. Just like many local PD's are using video and audio recordings to protect the officers against allegations of misconduct.
I associate with many local LEO's both active and retired, patrolman and administrators alike. Many of them, and like most of the LEO's on the forum believe in the individual right of citizens to own and carry firearms. However they are in the small minority, and most officers believe that armed "civilian"would make there job more dangerous and are not in favor of such laws.
In the case of Wisconsin the Governor used to have press conferences concerning concealed carry where he would have several dozen Chiefs of Police, Sheriffs and brass from the State patrol standing behind him in their dress blues. Also Support by police unions against any such law. So is this not an US vs. Them issue?
Maybe Kevin or another officer from Wisconsin can chime in here, but to my knowledge the do not cover any sections of the constitution at the state police academy's but yet when they swear in, they swear to uphold a document most of them have never looked at.
Now Pat A.
- "really lucky he didn't get shot" why is he lucky? Is open carry a direct threat to LEO's or Citizens?
-"Guy's a douche" Why?
-"should have called and let them know"
Why, does he need to ask for permission to exercise his right?
You can't educate people that don't want to be educated and a large portion of LEO's don't want to be educated. I'm sure you are well aware that most officers; don't carry off duty, or touch their firearms besides qual day...But yet they routinely deal with victims or perpetrators of violent crime daily at work. The don't see a need for themselves to do it let alone anyone else.
I am far from a constitutional scholar and unfortunately wasn't in state for much of these efforts. So if anyone has something to add or correct please feel free. stay safe.
Erik L
If the story is true and if indeed the officers acted improperly then I hope that the dept. does get sued. But, I really want to see what happens with the upcoming court date and I definitely want to see more facts first. I still think that we aren't getting the full picture here.
This could be a situation where all parties involved contributed to the situation. Even if Mr. Gun Owner is completely right legally, personally I think that he is an idiot by putting himself in the situation. Police tend to get nervous arriving on a scene and guns are involved and rightfully so. We also do not know how the call was placed to the P.D and in this day and age of assholes going on shooting sprees it is understandable.
If, in fact the Lt. gave the order to arrest him for "disorderly conduct" and it was unlawful then maybe some heads will roll? I often heard in my younger carrying years that an open carry could indeed lead to such a charge if someone was willing to sign a complaint. This is irregardless of whether open carry is allowed or not. Maybe that is the real issue here?
I say we wait and see what ALL the facts are.
You can't educate a group of people that don't want to be educated and most LEO's don't want to be educated.
You were doing just fine until you reached that point. As Marc pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, don't turn it into a general broad stroke criticism of LEOs.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 17:28
and probably rightly so. if im doing legal things with firearms and approached by police, depending on the circumstances i'm probably going to be a dickhead.
No offense meant here, bro, but that's a really bad way to go about things.
One of the oft-quoted positions of the OC advocates is that they are doing it to "exercise" their rights...and yet they also seem to get highly pissed off when the cops respond to a call for service based on the fact that some hysterical ninny dialed in a "MAN WITH A GUN!!!" 911 call.
If somebody is going to crusade, then part of the obligation there is to be a GOOD REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CAUSE. That means being polite and professional should you be required to interact with the police responding to a 911 call.
call me 200 years old, but it seems to me that a person not committing crimes should be able to go his entire life without ever having any contact with any form of government, especially police. i realize this is entirely impossible, the way our society has evolved, but i'm stubbornly stuck to this ideal.
I don't view interaction with LE as an odious thing. I interact with LE regularly and I have no problems with it...even when it's one of those blue lights in the rear view mirror experiences. Those aren't my favorite situations in the world, but I treat the officer with respect and I always get that same level of respect right back.
With cops a lot of what you get is what you give. They have a job to do. They don't get to ignore 911 calls. If you're openly displaying a weapon, be prepared for the possibility of having to interact with law enforcement. If they do show up, be polite and professional and 9 times out of 10 the encounter will end with "have a nice day, sir." and they'll be on their way.
Exercising one's rights does not always require behaving like a boor.
John_Wayne777
12-13-08, 17:34
You can't educate a group of people that don't want to be educated and most LEO's don't want to be educated.
While I've met some who fit that description, in my personal experience most officers aren't die-hards in either direction. In general the quality of the people they interact with has a lot to do with how they form opinions on the topic. Generally they deal with the worst of society on a day in and day out basis...the kind of people who try to shoot them or who shoot other people for no reason, or who brandish firearms to threaten their ex wives/baby momma/etc.
Interacting with a polite, professional, law abiding individual who happens to have a gun is a rarity for them. That kind of person can make a real difference in the attitude an on the fence officer has about the 2nd and citizen carry.
My 2 cents....no refunds. :)
BTW -- That sausage you gave me in Ohio was great. Best of that type I've ever tried.
No offense meant here, bro, but that's a really bad way to go about things.
One of the oft-quoted positions of the OC advocates is that they are doing it to "exercise" their rights...and yet they also seem to get highly pissed off when the cops respond to a call for service based on the fact that some hysterical ninny dialed in a "MAN WITH A GUN!!!" 911 call.
If somebody is going to crusade, then part of the obligation there is to be a GOOD REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CAUSE. That means being polite and professional should you be required to interact with the police responding to a 911 call.
I don't view interaction with LE as an odious thing. I interact with LE regularly and I have no problems with it...even when it's one of those blue lights in the rear view mirror experiences. Those aren't my favorite situations in the world, but I treat the officer with respect and I always get that same level of respect right back.
With cops a lot of what you get is what you give. They have a job to do. They don't get to ignore 911 calls. If you're openly displaying a weapon, be prepared for the possibility of having to interact with law enforcement. If they do show up, be polite and professional and 9 times out of 10 the encounter will end with "have a nice day, sir." and they'll be on their way.
Exercising one's rights does not always require behaving like a boor.
well i'm not speaking from an exercising-my-right-by-doing-something-somewhat-crazy-and/or-stupid standpoint.. i'm envisioning standing in my yard with a pistol on my hip- because that does happen quite frequently- and having Saint Helens PD come order me to the ground. especially here in Mudville, OR. I'd be a HUGE dickhead at that point.
if my buddy and i were walking around town with blasters on our hips and a patrol car rolled up and politely informed us that someone had called, and they were responding, i'd be just as polite as they were. no need to be a dickhead here- especially when knowing how likely it is that police will respond.
like i said, depending on the circumstances.
You were doing just fine until you reached that point. As Marc pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, don't turn it into a general broad stroke criticism of LEOs.
He actually said don't turn it into an Us vs. them pissing match. I honestly don't believe what I stated was one of those statements, nor do believe it to be a false statement. I will however change the wording to "a large number" instead of "most".
Also keep in mind my statement was in response to Pat A's statement "Therefore, it is better, in the long run, to take the path of education of your civil servants and establishing a dialogue beforehand to eliminate these, "Oh shit," situations."
I was at the VA emergency room about a year ago, .38 strapped to my hip, and had to take my shirt off. the nurse saw my gun and studdered, "is.. is that... is that a GUN??" and backed away from me. i was so filled with contempt and disgust at her for freaking out about a piece of metal on my hip that i turned into a pretty big dickhead (i'm usually a pretty big dickhead every time i go to the VA, seeing as they're a bunch of ****s [not just the VA, i hate all doctors and hospitals]), the federal police showed up about two seconds later and i suddenly remembered that carrying in a federal hospital is totally illegal.. and i was in the wrong anyway. the federal cop was really, really nice about it, which made me feel even stupider, and just politely, calmly asked me to hand it to him, i could pick it back up when i left. nobody drew down, nobody yelled, nobody got cuffed.
just my own little story, slightly related. that cop would have been basically justified in being a BIG dick to me- but he was the anti-dick, and it kept everything sane.
QuietShootr
12-13-08, 20:53
Who knows what really happened.
Having a voice recorder gun on you is an unusual move, and one that only someone who is expecting some kind of confrontation would do IMO...
See how that works?
Don't be a dickhead. Be polite. Be professional. Be armed with an A/V recorder of some type. Take notes. Ask for supervisors. But don't be a dickhead.
Many a defendant have undermined...nay...destroyed...likely dismissal or acquittal through bad attitude and conduct.
First off seems that this guy was wanting something to happen.
Understood. But isn't that how a lot of people protest? I'm sure Rosa Parks knew something was going to happen when she refused to sit where she was told, too. But regardless of his intent, it's still my understanding (unless I missed something somewhere) that carrying in his yard was legal.
I think it is not unreasonable to expect to be left alone in your own yard engaging in a legal activity.
What I think is really, really sad is that if the guy was carrying a recorder, he was expecting to be confronted on his own property while engaging in a legal activiy. I think that in itself is very telling.
We've had similar incidents in Virginia with open carrying in the Commie counties. It's legal - period. Absolutely no argument can ever be made to the contrary in this state. Ever. Yet many folks have been harassed (and in many cases that is exactly what I'll call it) and even arrested. A guy in the Norfolk area won a law suit in fact.
If we really live in a country where I can be arrested simply because my neighbor wants them to "do something" than perhaps I need to move.
That means being polite and professional should you be required to interact with the police responding to a 911 call.
I'm all for being polite - and will do so - but to a point. Guys open carrying in Northern VA and Tidewater were threatened with arrest if they didn't cease a legal activity. What exactly are the requirements for "disturbing the peace" anyway?
Seriously, if it were that easy to have someone hauled off by simply calling 911 I would have called 911 and complained there were liberals in my cul-de-sac passing out Obama literature earlier this year. In my eyes, that is certainly disturbing MY peace.
BUT - I personally can honestly say that all my interactions with law enforcement have been positive (with one exception, not gun related, that I won't get into.) Most officers I have spoken with are very eager to talk about guns in general and so far have been overwhelmingly pro-gun best I can tell.
John_Wayne777
12-14-08, 00:18
I'm all for being polite - and will do so - but to a point. Guys open carrying in Northern VA and Tidewater were threatened with arrest if they didn't cease a legal activity. What exactly are the requirements for "disturbing the peace" anyway?
Being polite and professional is ESPECIALLY important if you feel you are being railroaded. In Virginia arresting you solely for open carry would be illegal and the officers and department responsible for doing so would be putting their butt in a sling...and the VCDL would be along shortly to kick it.
Getting stupid with cops who are out of line doesn't help your cause.
I live close to where this incident happened.
In Wisconsin you can not CC. If you want to excersize your constitutional right you must OC.
The problem is many of the departments in Wisconsin will arrest you for DO if you OC even though you will not be convicted of DC.
In a number of jurisdictions it is standard policy to automatically arrest for simply OC even though they can not win a conviction.
It is the way it is in Wisconsin.
For those who think the voice recorder is suspicious you have not had experiences with officer's who purposly lie, intimidate, and use you to boost their ego.
The recorder garuntees that even when you have been polite, his word against yours will make your word the one believed because it is recorded.
Thanks for the info. Let me ask you this. If it is common knowledge that you will be arrested have any of these past personnel filed suit afterwards against the dept(s)? Just curious because sometimes when you hit someone in their pocket book they tend to pay more attention.
I live close to where this incident happened.
In Wisconsin you can not CC. If you want to excersize your constitutional right you must OC.
The problem is many of the departments in Wisconsin will arrest you for DO if you OC even though you will not be convicted of DC.
In a number of jurisdictions it is standard policy to automatically arrest for simply OC even though they can not win a conviction.
It is the way it is in Wisconsin.
For those who think the voice recorder is suspicious you have not had experiences with officer's who purposly lie, intimidate, and use you to boost their ego.
The recorder garuntees that even when you have been polite, his word against yours will make your word the one believed because it is recorded.
Thanks for the info. Let me ask you this. If it is common knowledge that you will be arrested have any of these past personnel filed suit afterwards against the dept(s)? Just curious because sometimes when you hit someone in their pocket book they tend to pay more attention.
No. The original story is not the norm (rushing the guy and the hype).
They will take your firearm (which may take a few months to get back) and then release you after the brief arrest. There really isn't anything to sue for.
For those who have suggested you contact the Department before you excersize your right I have two responses.
I don't understand the reason you have to check in to excersize a right.
2nd. This is an actual letter written to a Police Chief and his unconstitutional response.
Dear Chief Anthony Brus ,
Wisconsin's constitution grants the people the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Both the State Supreme Court and Governor Doyle have stated that as concealed carry is currently illegal in Wisconsin, open carry is the only means available to the citizens as a way of exercising this right. The State also has a pre-emption firearm law. Statute 66.0409(2)
As a law abiding resident and property owner in Fort Atkinson, the purpose of my letter is to understand if the Departments policy on the open carry of a firearm is congruous with state law. It has been my experience that a few municipalities in Wisconsin were even unaware of the current statutes regarding the right to open carry.
I understand that your department cannot provide any preconceived assurances based on hypothetical situations of the handling of an infinite number of possible scenarios. I would like to confirm however, as a matter or principle and practicality, that in accordance with state law, merely the possession of a properly holstered non-concealed openly carried firearm in public does not in and of itself constitute disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace.
Thank-you in advance for your time and the favor of a reply.
Respectfully,
His response:
And here is his reply:
I am in receipt of your letter inquiring about the ability to carry a holstered firearm. In reading your request you are questioning the letter of the law regarding consequences of charges relating to carrying the holstered firearm. While I am inclined to comment on the letter of the law, I don't want to be misunderstood and would like to explain the reality of the circumstances if one were to do so.
While the possesion of a properly holstered firearm may not be a technical violation of the law, the circumstances surrounding the behavior would likely result in an arrest. First of all, there are numerous restrictions of the law that would limit a person's ability to carry a holstered firearm; i.e. transporting in vehicles, being within 1000 feet of any school property, being in public buildings, churches, taverns, etc. Secondly, the behavior would easily be considered disorderly conduct because of the concern it would cause the public. Our department would receive complaints regarding the behavior, and we would deal with it by way of arrest for disorderly conduct.
I believe that I have adequately answered your concerns in your letter and hope I have made it clear that an arrest would be likely for disorderly conduct if a person were to go armed with a holstered weapon. Please contact me at the above number if you would like to discuss the matter further.
Sincerely,
There is more.
As you can see while it is lawful to OC it is not possible if you don't want to be arrested.
That is wrong
Though I am not a lawyer, if you are arrested for exercising a constitutionally protected right under the guise of "disorderly conduct" and then the charges are dropped I would think that there is cause there. Especially if the police do it w/o being called. For example you are walking down the street, they see your weapon, stop you and then arrest you for disorderly. If their actions were legal and justified then why would the prosecutor drop the charge?
No. The original story is not the norm (rushing the guy and the hype).
They will take your firearm (which may take a few months to get back) and then release you after the brief arrest. There really isn't anything to sue for.
For those who have suggested you contact the Department before you excersize your right I have two responses.
I don't understand the reason you have to check in to excersize a right.
2nd. This is an actual letter written to a Police Chief and his unconstitutional response.
Dear Chief Anthony Brus ,
Wisconsin's constitution grants the people the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Both the State Supreme Court and Governor Doyle have stated that as concealed carry is currently illegal in Wisconsin, open carry is the only means available to the citizens as a way of exercising this right. The State also has a pre-emption firearm law. Statute 66.0409(2)
As a law abiding resident and property owner in Fort Atkinson, the purpose of my letter is to understand if the Departments policy on the open carry of a firearm is congruous with state law. It has been my experience that a few municipalities in Wisconsin were even unaware of the current statutes regarding the right to open carry.
I understand that your department cannot provide any preconceived assurances based on hypothetical situations of the handling of an infinite number of possible scenarios. I would like to confirm however, as a matter or principle and practicality, that in accordance with state law, merely the possession of a properly holstered non-concealed openly carried firearm in public does not in and of itself constitute disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace.
Thank-you in advance for your time and the favor of a reply.
Respectfully,
His response:
And here is his reply:
I am in receipt of your letter inquiring about the ability to carry a holstered firearm. In reading your request you are questioning the letter of the law regarding consequences of charges relating to carrying the holstered firearm. While I am inclined to comment on the letter of the law, I don't want to be misunderstood and would like to explain the reality of the circumstances if one were to do so.
While the possesion of a properly holstered firearm may not be a technical violation of the law, the circumstances surrounding the behavior would likely result in an arrest. First of all, there are numerous restrictions of the law that would limit a person's ability to carry a holstered firearm; i.e. transporting in vehicles, being within 1000 feet of any school property, being in public buildings, churches, taverns, etc. Secondly, the behavior would easily be considered disorderly conduct because of the concern it would cause the public. Our department would receive complaints regarding the behavior, and we would deal with it by way of arrest for disorderly conduct.
I believe that I have adequately answered your concerns in your letter and hope I have made it clear that an arrest would be likely for disorderly conduct if a person were to go armed with a holstered weapon. Please contact me at the above number if you would like to discuss the matter further.
Sincerely,
There is more.
As you can see while it is lawful to OC it is not possible if you don't want to be arrested.
That is wrong
Well, there's no law saying open-carry is illegal, but there's also no law saying open carry is legal.
In thinking about other legal activities that could be arrestable for disorderly conduct- running around naked, in oregon, is not illegal- there's no law forbidding nakedness. However, you WOULD be arrested for disorderly conduct if you were to walk around town with your shlong dingle dangling all over the place.
So I guess we can sum it all up with- just because somethings "not illegal" doesn't make it "legal."
Not being a lawyer I will say this. How does he know what concern it would cause the public? That sounds alot like we will arrest you before hand because we know that even though it is legal someone will probably call us. Since when can you arrest someone because you think they are going to commit a crime?
Sounds like some people need to get together, contact the pro-2A groups and do something about this.
No. The original story is not the norm (rushing the guy and the hype).
They will take your firearm (which may take a few months to get back) and then release you after the brief arrest. There really isn't anything to sue for.
For those who have suggested you contact the Department before you excersize your right I have two responses.
I don't understand the reason you have to check in to excersize a right.
2nd. This is an actual letter written to a Police Chief and his unconstitutional response.
Dear Chief Anthony Brus ,
Wisconsin's constitution grants the people the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Both the State Supreme Court and Governor Doyle have stated that as concealed carry is currently illegal in Wisconsin, open carry is the only means available to the citizens as a way of exercising this right. The State also has a pre-emption firearm law. Statute 66.0409(2)
As a law abiding resident and property owner in Fort Atkinson, the purpose of my letter is to understand if the Departments policy on the open carry of a firearm is congruous with state law. It has been my experience that a few municipalities in Wisconsin were even unaware of the current statutes regarding the right to open carry.
I understand that your department cannot provide any preconceived assurances based on hypothetical situations of the handling of an infinite number of possible scenarios. I would like to confirm however, as a matter or principle and practicality, that in accordance with state law, merely the possession of a properly holstered non-concealed openly carried firearm in public does not in and of itself constitute disorderly conduct/disturbing the peace.
Thank-you in advance for your time and the favor of a reply.
Respectfully,
His response:
And here is his reply:
I am in receipt of your letter inquiring about the ability to carry a holstered firearm. In reading your request you are questioning the letter of the law regarding consequences of charges relating to carrying the holstered firearm. While I am inclined to comment on the letter of the law, I don't want to be misunderstood and would like to explain the reality of the circumstances if one were to do so.
While the possesion of a properly holstered firearm may not be a technical violation of the law, the circumstances surrounding the behavior would likely result in an arrest. First of all, there are numerous restrictions of the law that would limit a person's ability to carry a holstered firearm; i.e. transporting in vehicles, being within 1000 feet of any school property, being in public buildings, churches, taverns, etc. Secondly, the behavior would easily be considered disorderly conduct because of the concern it would cause the public. Our department would receive complaints regarding the behavior, and we would deal with it by way of arrest for disorderly conduct.
I believe that I have adequately answered your concerns in your letter and hope I have made it clear that an arrest would be likely for disorderly conduct if a person were to go armed with a holstered weapon. Please contact me at the above number if you would like to discuss the matter further.
Sincerely,
There is more.
As you can see while it is lawful to OC it is not possible if you don't want to be arrested.
That is wrong
Are you referring to Oregon or Wisconsin? Every state is different and from what people are saying and some of the stuff I read it appears that open carry is in fact legal in that state unless I missed something.
Well, there's no law saying open-carry is illegal, but there's also no law saying open carry is legal.
In thinking about other legal activities that could be arrestable for disorderly conduct- running around naked, in oregon, is not illegal- there's no law forbidding nakedness. However, you WOULD be arrested for disorderly conduct if you were to walk around town with your shlong dingle dangling all over the place.
So I guess we can sum it all up with- just because somethings "not illegal" doesn't make it "legal."
Though I am not a lawyer, if you are arrested for exercising a constitutionally protected right under the guise of "disorderly conduct" and then the charges are dropped I would think that there is cause there. Especially if the police do it w/o being called. For example you are walking down the street, they see your weapon, stop you and then arrest you for disorderly. If their actions were legal and justified then why would the prosecutor drop the charge?
im not a lawyer either, but if wisconsin is the "commie paradise" a few people have said, law suits on this matter aren't likely to be benificial.
some states don't allow open-carry at all, as i recall.. apparently openly carrying isn't Constitutionally protected in some places.
as we all know, the Consitution is subject to whatever the hell somebody wants to interpret it as.
Are you referring to Oregon or Wisconsin? Every state is different and from what people are saying and some of the stuff I read it appears that open carry is in fact legal in that state unless I missed something.
open carry is "not illegal" in both states.. i was speaking about wisconsin, though. is there a law specifically making it "legal" there?
I do not know as I live in Arizona. But, I did read some of the previous legal opinions and case law and it seemd to me that it was in fact legal. I'll let a real lawyer read it and get back to us.
open carry is "not illegal" in both states.. i was speaking about wisconsin, though. is there a law specifically making it "legal" there?
I will be interested in links to court transcripts and other public records concerning this case as those sources become available.
There is the cause ( legit open carry ) , and there is this specific case , in a specific town , in a specific state.
In general , lone ranger test cases don't seem to be a very effective way to help the cause. I'm not convinced that audio alone is enough for a truly open and shut defense. Non-verbals matter.
some states don't allow open-carry at all, as i recall.. apparently openly carrying isn't Constitutionally protected in some places
You're right - open carry is NOT Constitutionally protected. But in areas where open carry is not against the law, you should not be able to be arrested for it just "because" someone doesn't like it.
People shouldn't be able to just make up laws on the fly and call it "disorderly conduct."
I have made it clear that an arrest would be likely for disorderly conduct if a person were to go armed with a holstered weapon.
But that's OK because he "refuses to comment on the letter of the law." I guess he IS the law in his town ... :rolleyes:
Serriously - what are the requirements for "disorderly conduct"? Does anyone know or is it just a blanket charge that can be levied on anyone at any time? If the latter, I thinkt that's a problem.
mmike,
Here is whaht was posted on the jpfo.com website. This apparently coms from a case in Wisconsin regarding "disorderly conduct".
State v Douglas D 2001 WI 47, para 15.243 WIS 2d, 204,626N.W, 2d 725. Para. 15
"The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute (947.01)" First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unnecessarily loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance". Emphasis added
Here is something else;
WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
Serriously - what are the requirements for "disorderly conduct"? Does anyone know or is it just a blanket charge that can be levied on anyone at any time? If the latter, I thinkt that's a problem.
Here's Oregon's Disorderly Conduct:
166.023 Disorderly conduct in the first degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the first degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or knowingly creating a risk thereof, the person initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false:
(a) Concerning an alleged hazardous substance or an alleged or impending fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency; and
(b) Stating that the hazardous substance, fire, explosion, catastrophe or other emergency is located in or upon a school as defined in ORS 339.315.
(2)(a) Disorderly conduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, disorderly conduct in the first degree is a Class C felony if the defendant has at least one prior conviction for violating subsection (1) of this section. [2005 c.631 §3]
166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
(a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
(b) Makes unreasonable noise;
(c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
(d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
(e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
(f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
(g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
(2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §220; 1983 c.546 §5; 2001 c.104 §55; 2005 c.631 §1]
Wisconsin Law Library resource page on WI firearms laws, including legislative summaries:
http://wsll.state.wi.us/topic/firearms.html
West Allis PD Website:
http://www.ci.west-allis.wi.us/police/police_welcome.htm
West Allis PD Records Request Form:
http://www.ci.west-allis.wi.us/pdf_libraries/police/Forms/Request_for_Records.pdf
They will take your firearm (which may take a few months to get back) and then release you after the brief arrest. There really isn't anything to sue for.
This is the crux of the issue.
Either:
The officers confiscated personal property and held the suspect illegally, or
The officers confiscated personal property and held the suspect legally.
If it's #1, he can sue and everyone should be upset about what happened.
If it's #2, then the officers were acting legally and there's no sense blaming the officers. You don't like the law, work to have the law changed. Go to the state capitol and get your state legislature to modify the disorderly conduct statute(s) so that openly carrying a loaded pistol is not prima facie disorderly conduct.
Bolt_Overide
12-14-08, 20:17
I dont have an opinion either way as to whether this guys an asshat or not, but if he wasnt breaking the law, it shouldnt matter whether he is an asshat or not.
I do however opine that if you're going to enforce the law, you have an inherant responsibility to know and understand the law you enforce, even more so than the average citizen.
I dont have an opinion either way as to whether this guys an asshat or not, but if he wasnt breaking the law, it shouldnt matter whether he is an asshat or not.
I do however opine that if you're going to enforce the law, you have an inherant responsibility to know and understand the law you enforce, even more so than the average citizen.
administrative philosophy carries into the street. if the cheif is an asshole, the whole department may have asshole tendancies. and clearly this chief is an asshole on the issue of open-carry.
sue the bums.
I open carry on my property all the time, and I always have a voice recorder with me, it is simply my BlackBerry, that has a voice recorder feature and an 8GB memory card, I can record photos, video and sound. With a simply press of one button in my pocket I can record a conversation, or interview, for hours.
If I was being questioned for any reason by the police and I had the presence of mind, I would certainly start the recorder.
How is open carry not constitutionally protected?
The 2A reads "...The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Bear means to carry...so they are in fact VIOLATING the 2A!
mmike,
Here is whaht was posted on the jpfo.com website. This apparently coms from a case in Wisconsin regarding "disorderly conduct".
State v Douglas D 2001 WI 47, para 15.243 WIS 2d, 204,626N.W, 2d 725. Para. 15
"The State must prove two elements to convict a defendant under this statute (947.01)" First, it must prove that the defendant engaged in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unnecessarily loud, or similar disorderly conduct. Second, it must prove that the defendant's conduct occurred under circumstances where such conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance". Emphasis added
Here is something else;
WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
I'm not a lawyer, but given the info we had (which possibly is not everything) I can't see how simply carrying a gun in your yard meets those requirements, unless he was running around yelling "Look at me I have a gun" or something. I guess they can say any gun, any where, any time is automatically a disturbance, in which case we're all screwed.
mmike,
I agree 100%. Looking at this info and assuming that we got the full story I would say that there was a screw up. Let's see how this unfolds.
I'm not a lawyer, but given the info we had (which possibly is not everything) I can't see how simply carrying a gun in your yard meets those requirements, unless he was running around yelling "Look at me I have a gun" or something. I guess they can say any gun, any where, any time is automatically a disturbance, in which case we're all screwed.
Well, there's no law saying open-carry is illegal, but there's also no law saying open carry is legal.
In thinking about other legal activities that could be arrestable for disorderly conduct- running around naked, in oregon, is not illegal- there's no law forbidding nakedness. However, you WOULD be arrested for disorderly conduct if you were to walk around town with your shlong dingle dangling all over the place.
So I guess we can sum it all up with- just because somethings "not illegal" doesn't make it "legal."
That statement is true for a European Democracy but not under our Constitutional Republic.
First, the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed. To ban CC means the only way to excersize that right is to open carry.
Second, we are under common law. That is something most Americans are not taught much about in school. In it's basic sense that means whatever is not restriced is permitted so long as the action does not violate the constitutional right of another.
Admiralty Law and Napoleonic Code are not part of US civil law.
How is open carry not constitutionally protected?
The 2A reads "...The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Bear means to carry...so they are in fact VIOLATING the 2A!
That is absolutely correct.
If CC is made illegal than one must be permitted to OC.
If OC is illegal than one must be permitted to CC.
Actually neither should be banned however, if one is banned you must allow the orther or you are taking away the expression of that inalianable right.
The Constitution was not written as a restriction of individual rights. It was written to garuntee those rights and establish the bounds the Government could NOT go outside of.
That statement is true for a European Democracy but not under our Constitutional Republic.
First, the right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed. To ban CC means the only way to excersize that right is to open carry.
Second, we are under common law. That is something most Americans are not taught much about in school. In it's basic sense that means whatever is not restriced is permitted so long as the action does not violate the constitutional right of another.
Admiralty Law and Napoleonic Code are not part of US civil law.
well which one of our descriptions more accurately describes the "law" in wisconsin?
i wasn't talking about what it's supposed to be, i was describing how it IS.
Second, we are under common law. That is something most Americans are not taught much about in school. In it's basic sense that means whatever is not restriced is permitted so long as the action does not violate the constitutional right of another.
Um ... huh? Can you explain that in more detail?
We covered common law quite a bit when I was in school (specifically, law school) and I've never heard any kind of interpretation close to that.
What constitutional rights of others do you think I have to respect as a private citizen? I can lawfully refuse to let someone carry a gun on my property, I can freely censor anything anyone says in any publication I create, hell I can even make fun of people who believe in different religions if I want to.
I do agree that nothing is illegal unless there is a law saying it's illegal, but that has absolutely nothing to do with common law. In fact, it has everything to do with statutory law.
It is true that much of the foundation for the U.S. legal system (except in Louisiana) is founded on British common law, but that doesn't change the fact that our criminal system is still statutory in nature.
Um ... huh? Can you explain that in more detail?
We covered common law quite a bit when I was in school (specifically, law school) and I've never heard any kind of interpretation close to that.
What constitutional rights of others do you think I have to respect as a private citizen? I can lawfully refuse to let someone carry a gun on my property, I can freely censor anything anyone says in any publication I create, hell I can even make fun of people who believe in different religions if I want to.
I do agree that nothing is illegal unless there is a law saying it's illegal, but that has absolutely nothing to do with common law. In fact, it has everything to do with statutory law.
It is true that much of the foundation for the U.S. legal system (except in Louisiana) is founded on British common law, but that doesn't change the fact that our criminal system is still statutory in nature.
When you state that you may keep something out of your publication or that you have a right to not allow someone to carry on your property that is 100% true.
It is your right to believe as you chose, to associate with whom you chose.
I am speaking in terms of the government not your person (private). I must respect your private property rights. If it is legal for me to OC on the sidewalk that does not mean I have the right to walk on to your property with the firearm if you, the land owner, tell me no.
Also, statutory law is invalid if it violates the constitution. You can have a city pass a law stateing that an individual can not own a handgun. That may be a statutory law but......DC vs Heller-it is not constitutional.
As you said-if there is nothing stateing something is illegal than it is legal (permisable). So long as the excersize of it does not violate anothers constitutional right.
Example. I publish a very derogatory dishonest article about you. That is my freedom of speech, however, that could get me into all kinds of legal trouble and rightly so.
Correct me if I am wrong. The decision in Heller v. D.C does not apply to very jurisdiction, but rather D.C. Though the court stated that the 2A is an individual right, people in New York and other places will still have to bring suits challenging their perspective locales law. I believe that is what the NRA and some others did after the ruling.
When you state that you may keep something out of your publication or that you have a right to not allow someone to carry on your property that is 100% true.
It is your right to believe as you chose, to associate with whom you chose.
I am speaking in terms of the government not your person (private). I must respect your private property rights. If it is legal for me to OC on the sidewalk that does not mean I have the right to walk on to your property with the firearm if you, the land owner, tell me no.
Also, statutory law is invalid if it violates the constitution. You can have a city pass a law stateing that an individual can not own a handgun. That may be a statutory law but......DC vs Heller-it is not constitutional.
As you said-if there is nothing stateing something is illegal than it is legal (permisable). So long as the excersize of it does not violate anothers constitutional right.
Example. I publish a very derogatory dishonest article about you. That is my freedom of speech, however, that could get me into all kinds of legal trouble and rightly so.
So, not exactly.
First, if you publish slanderous material you are de facto not exercising your right to free speech. Slander is not protected speech. That is an extremely important distinction.
There is no question that a law can be unconstitutional, you're certainly correct there. It's called the hierarchy of laws (which is usually lumped into a field called Conflict of Law). The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and any law which violates the Constitution is, by definition, unconstitutional. However, it's pretty hard for an individual to violate someone else's constitutional rights (unless he's doing so under color of law, which is again a separate issue). That's the part of your statement I'm still having trouble understanding:
As you said-if there is nothing stateing something is illegal than it is legal (permisable). So long as the excersize of it does not violate anothers constitutional right.
Well said.
You are correct about posting slanderous material. I was using an extreme to try to demonstrate my point.
Sometimes it is difficult to have dialog via typed messages so bear with me.
What I meant by excersizing a right and without violating anothers right I'll try to use the right to bear arms example.
If I walk down the sidewalk in front of your house with a pistol in my holster that would be perfectly OK.
If however I walked up to your door and knocked on it you could tell me I have to remove my firearm while on your property. I would then have to comply with that restriction on my right because it is your property and your property right would come before my excersizing my right to bear arms as one private citizen to another.
Has anyone found any more of facts of this case? I don't believe the article gives enough details to show clearly who was in the wrong. Could the guy have behaved in a way that necessitated his arrest, sure. Could the officers involved have had an anti-gun bias, sadly yes.
Winston Smith
12-30-08, 19:02
Guys- there are 2 states of our 50 that don't allow CCW. Wisconsin is one. The other is BHO's home state. :p
I could be wrong; I don't know anything other that what the story printed and the national & state gun laws from the Internet, but I think this is about Wisconsin, not the cops.
It may be to start a legal challange to give Wisconsin residents some Self-Defence rights.
Watch for more news...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.